FDX - Communications from the NC
01-31-2009 | 07:20 AM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
You could fix half the C/O problems tomorrow and it would not cost the company a nickle. Simply quit rewarding CIC with priority makeup and reserve leveling; the demand will drop significantly. It would not put more hours into the bid pack. Of course than you would have the open time Ho's flying the 100 hour months.
I'm no grammar nazi...But, you really should work on your "thans and thens".
01-31-2009 | 09:29 AM
#124
Line Holder
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
From: Retired FDX MD11 Capt
Wait for the details
I added the bold since the concept of an in depth executive summary was hotly debated when we were going through our last round of negotiations. Maybe we can learn something from the other guys here, seeing as so much of the hidden money and gems in our current contract seem to be very difficult to find.
Perhaps some commentary and explanations would help us make a better decision on our next TA and contract. I think that it would be better to have both a summary and explanation document to review in addition to the actual contract language.
Sounds like SWAPA did a pretty nice job negotiating this TA with wage increases and even retro pay. Maybe ALPA could get some help from these guys, who also helped bring about the age change (which I was totally against, but that is neither here nor there). They must have a pretty good NC.
Perhaps some commentary and explanations would help us make a better decision on our next TA and contract. I think that it would be better to have both a summary and explanation document to review in addition to the actual contract language.
Sounds like SWAPA did a pretty nice job negotiating this TA with wage increases and even retro pay. Maybe ALPA could get some help from these guys, who also helped bring about the age change (which I was totally against, but that is neither here nor there). They must have a pretty good NC.
This press release could be from any airlines' T/A over the last ten years.
One man's "detailed executive summary" is another's "bullet points memo"
One man's retro pay is another's signing bonus.
Congrats to SWAPA for getting a T/A. I'll wait for details and the SWA line pilots' reactions before I shout "What a great T/A that is!"
01-31-2009 | 01:29 PM
#127
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
From: 3B
Yea, I guess if we never think outside of the box all that hidden money will just jump right out at us.
Maybe if we had put out a bullet points memo from our last LOA some of our membership would have taken the time to read them and not have voted for such a steaming turd. Instead, the vast majority didn't even appear to read it and while it is probably keeping us from a furlough it is still an inadequate LOA.
I think maybe BC wanted everybody to simply read the contract to keep us in the dark. You can't possibly understand the intent of much of the language in the contract. Our MEC/LEC members couldn't even agree on the meaning of 4A2b with the language right in front of them. So by not providing the executive summary we were forced to wade through hundreds of pages of legalease trying to make sense out of it, as the company lawyers took us to the woodshed.
More than two years is still quicker than we were able to get our last deal done. But we've probably got nothing to learn from others.
Maybe if we had put out a bullet points memo from our last LOA some of our membership would have taken the time to read them and not have voted for such a steaming turd. Instead, the vast majority didn't even appear to read it and while it is probably keeping us from a furlough it is still an inadequate LOA.
I think maybe BC wanted everybody to simply read the contract to keep us in the dark. You can't possibly understand the intent of much of the language in the contract. Our MEC/LEC members couldn't even agree on the meaning of 4A2b with the language right in front of them. So by not providing the executive summary we were forced to wade through hundreds of pages of legalease trying to make sense out of it, as the company lawyers took us to the woodshed.
More than two years is still quicker than we were able to get our last deal done. But we've probably got nothing to learn from others.
02-01-2009 | 05:45 AM
#128
Line Holder
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
From: Retired FDX MD11 Capt
I spoke with a long time SWA pilot buddy yesterday. His rumor mill was for a five year contract (retro to 2006). Pay raises of 2, 2, 2, 2, 1%. He expects a $10-15,000 retro check. Somewhat smaller than our "signing bonus" was.
All I'm saying is I'm not getting all excited over what a great job SWAPA did vs our own guys negotiating a contract. I'll wait for the details.
What we have now is a heck of a lot better than we had beck in 1990 when I came on board.
02-01-2009 | 12:09 PM
#129
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 12
From: MD11 FO
Look, if SWAPA gets any sort of a improved contract during the worst economic times this country has seen in 50+ years then I'd say that's a real accomplishment. Pay raises? Wow, pretty darn good considering we're looking at current pay cuts. It's a 5 year contract that probably takes them right to the time when the economy will (hopefully) be back in full swing - 2011. Just about no economist out there predicts much improvement until 2010. We negotiated our contract back when the economy (and company) was booming. And we did it right after UPS signed theirs - on reflection, not as great an accomplishment as one would have thought at the time.
02-01-2009 | 01:08 PM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 0
From: Gear Monkey
I'll give you the answer "O" gave us during the 727 LCA meeting last week. He prefaced it by saying that this would have been his first choice of options the help the manning. He said the people who would be targeted would not be the 60-65 guys/gals. They only have a few years left on property, so they wouldn't get it offered to them. The ones they would want to target are the 55-60 year olds. He said the problem is with the bean counters. Apparently the IRS funding rules for pension plans change once you start offering early retirements. You have to fund it at a higher rate for everyone from the most junior offered to the most senior, whether or not they take it. (I'm not sure if this is the exact rule, but the gist was that it was too expensive). So the accountants shot that down as too expensive.
Then he went into a little talk about how he was conducting his own "unofficial" poll, and he didn't think that the company would get too many takers due to senior guys taking a hit on their B-plan, lots of vacation, sick, etc. I think he was a little in the weeds on that part. I actually would like to see ALPA conduct a survey of the 55-60 year olds on the list and come right out and ask them if they were able to retire now without penalty, would they?
Someone mentioned Continental's early buy out, and "O" said the difference was that CAL didn't have an A-plan.
Carryover was brought up, and "O" said that it has been reduced to as much as possible. Someone in the audience asked about bidding quarterly to further reduce carryover. "O" said that was an interesting idea, and he doesn't know if anyone has looked at that. He said he would bring it up.
Don't shoot the messenger... I'm just a plumber...
Then he went into a little talk about how he was conducting his own "unofficial" poll, and he didn't think that the company would get too many takers due to senior guys taking a hit on their B-plan, lots of vacation, sick, etc. I think he was a little in the weeds on that part. I actually would like to see ALPA conduct a survey of the 55-60 year olds on the list and come right out and ask them if they were able to retire now without penalty, would they?
Someone mentioned Continental's early buy out, and "O" said the difference was that CAL didn't have an A-plan.
Carryover was brought up, and "O" said that it has been reduced to as much as possible. Someone in the audience asked about bidding quarterly to further reduce carryover. "O" said that was an interesting idea, and he doesn't know if anyone has looked at that. He said he would bring it up.
Don't shoot the messenger... I'm just a plumber...
Just flew with another pilot (mil retired w/26 yr pension, about 10 yrs at FEDEX, about 57-58 yrs old) who's just staying on until 60 because he doesn't want to take a penalty for going early. Has managed his investments well (must not have been too heavy in the market) and is willing to go tomorrow, if the company will bump him up to age 60 on paper.
My point is there are guys out there willing to go early.
Maybe not a ton, but a handful and every handful counts.
I think the Union needs to get more clarity/information from the company regarding these supposed "funding problems" with offering any early retirement packages and make that info public.
Re: carryover reduction --- wouldn't changing the bid period from 4 weeks to 8 weeks reduce half the carryover without costing the company one penny in increased crew costs due to swapping out international crews mid-trip?
Let's keep getting creative.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
